I'm most of the way through a book I bought very casually but which has proven to be quite an amazing source of history  and informed casework regarding his life, and his teachings - written in a very conservative and factual style by a man who has devoted much of his life to serious archaeological and academic research on the topic.

The title is 'Jesus After the Crucifiction - from Jerusalem to Rennes le Chateau' by Bear and Company Books, Rochester, Vermont.

The title bears all the signs of a small publisher hoping to hop on the bandwagon created by the best sellers in recent years on this topic, and on the Cathars in the Languedoc region in the South of France.

Regardless of this it's actually a very carefully researched  but very readable history of the early Christian church which places Jesus very firmly as having been an Essene, and the Essenes as one of a long string of Gnostic traditions within the early Jewish and other religions dating back to the time of Moses - with links to groups all around the Mediterranean and further afield. Including long established Gnostic traditions (if not the Cathars or their predecessors), and the Celtic/Druidic traditions.

Gnostic = self and wider knowledge from spiritual growth based on insight and experience, using tools like meditation.

The author is a rather proper and now quite old English gent named Graham Simmans - it seems effectively to document his life's work. I doubt he chose the title.

It presents the evidence, but does not push theories or ideology. Along the way it tells the story in quite a lot of detail of how the early church in keeping with Jesus' teachings was Gnostic (about self knowledge) and how it was initially challenged by worldly and dogmatic Pauline teachings like those of todays Catholic Church, and how with the involvement of the Roman emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicea this (Alexandrian faction) became the 'official' Christian Church.

Which led immediately to brutal suppression of the other (especially the Gnostic) strands of Christianity, the horrors of the Crusades and the Inquisition and ultimately to blame of the Jews for killing 'God' and all that that led to. The papal crusade which wiped out the Cathars in the liddle ages finally wiped out public Gnosticism and drove all subsequent groups until recent times underground.

Anyway. There's lots that's uplifting too. It's well worth a look if that sort of thing interests you. It won't please too many orthodox Catholics or conservative Christians though.....

I have no beef with the one known as Jesus, but I am currently recovering from my morale having been shattered by witnessing the arrogance and intolerance to freedom of religion and freedom of belief occuring in the ranks of those who define themselves as Christian.  The specific sect of Christianity I was raised in failed for me because it provided no access to "The God", and expected me to put my faith in an ambiguious and destructable text book.  Even more saddening is their indifference to those who do not share their beliefs and conditional love. 

In other words, I wish to have first-person-experience in the stead of word and text.  Enough with the bloodshed over ideology and prejudice against those who do not wish to believe in one thing.   

Steve Ed:

I don't know what it's like to be a member of a hard core fundamentalist group, because I have never been one. Sometimes it seems like such groups shoot themselves in their own foots, because how can a loving person choose to stay around an unloving judgmental group? If such groups want people to have faith in Christ, perhaps they should find a better way than fearing people into believing in a certain way. When you get people to be angry, judgmental and afraid, you cause them to connect to the vibrational rate you're trying to avoid.

A lot of fundamentalist Christians wouldn't care for me.  I found that I recaptured some of my true spiritual self first by not worrying about how fundamentalists would judge me, and next by not having judgemental feeling towards them.  Both ways of thinking caused unwanted energetic blocks. Occasionally I find myself getting into a judgemental mind space. I need to become better at not doing so.

I had a dream the other night. I was in a room with Jesus and 30-40 of his non fundamentalist supporters. I started suggesting that perhaps some fundamentalists should be invited to our meeting, perhaps the leaders of some fundamentalist grougs. Jesus said in a strong way: "Impossible!" and the dream came to an end. My feeling is that eventually the fundamentalist way of discerning what Jesus said needs to come to an end. Whenever I allow myself to believe in such a way I get a dark feeling in my heart chakra.  When I don't indulge in such a way, I have a light, peaceful, and loving feeling.


Quote:

[vajra:] "The title is 'Jesus After the Crucifiction]- from Jerusalem to Rennes le Chateau' by Bear and Company Books, Rochester, Vermont.  Regardless of this it's actually a very carefully researched  but very readable history of the early Christian church which places Jesus very firmly as having been an Essene, "
____________________________________________________________________
Nonsense!  The candidacy of Jesus and John the Baptist as Essenes has been thoroughly examined and dismissed by scholars in the 1950s and 1960s.  Only New Age kooks continue to trot out this outdated theory and do so without consulting the relevant scholarly literature.

[vajra:] "...and the Essenes as one of a long string of Gnostic traditions within the early Jewish and other religions dating back to the time of Moses"
______________________________________

More New Age quackdoodle!  Gnosticism is rooted in Middle Platonism and has no roots in Essene ideology. Our knowledge of the Essenes is limited to information provided by Philo, Josephus, Pliny, Hippolytus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.  New Agers invoke bogus and irrelevant documents from a much later period.  Reincarnation is not taught by the historical Essenes from the time of Jesus.  

[vajra:] "Gnostic = self and wider knowledge from spiritual growth based on insight and experience, using tools like meditation."
____________________________

Wrong!  Gnosticism from the period of the early church is generally characterized by a redeemed Redeemer myth with the context of a pessimistic dualism.  The Gnostics stress salvation through mythological gnosis of the divine spart within.  There is little evidence that they meditated in the modern sense of the term.

[vajra:] "the early church in keeping with Jesus' teachings was Gnostic (about self knowledge) and how it was initially challenged by worldly and dogmatic Pauline teachings like those of todays Catholic Church."
_____________________________________________________________________________
More New Age rubbish!  The Gospel of Thomas (144 mostly inauthentic sayings of Jesus) is a mid-2nd century work that quotes all 4 New Testament Gospels and has little to teach us about the historical Jesus.  In fact, it is not Gnostic at all but Encratite.  Once this is realized, Gnostic writings are far too late to offer any reliable traditions about the historical Jesus.  This is the universal verdict of modern critical scholarship, which the New Age Ghetto does not bother to consult.  Paul writes in the late 40s and 50s AD, long before Gnosticism bursts on the scene, though parasitic Gnosticism would later twist Pauline theology to justify their absurd notions.  Modern scholars find the early Gnostics intriguing as an example of syncretistic fusion of Christianity with Greek philosphical notions, but also concede that, unlike Greek philosophers, most Gnostics were "kooks."  If you don't believe me, try reading through The Nag Hammadi Library, especially documents like Eugnostos the Blessed and the Second Logos of the Great Seth.  I've had to read Gnostic works in the original Coptic.

Graham Simmans book is the perfect book for the isolated and insulated New Age Ghetto with its insipid disregard for the acknowleged experts in the topics on which New Agers pontificate.  If you want to press your point, I challenge you to document a Gnostic timeline complete with dates and locales of Gnostic works traceable to first century Essenism.  Lots of luck! Your efforts might just lure you out of the Ghetto!

Don

Thank you Juditha. Thank you also Don. The point was not to argue the position taken by the book, just to present it for consideration.

That said I'd not be too concerned that  Graham Simmands' views' challenge some orthodox concensus. Alternative views on this sort of stuff can be a bit wacky, but it's equally clear that when selective perception, vested interest and cultural/religious bias are factored in that so called 'serious researchers' occupy a fairly similar space.

Which I guess leaves ample room for the reality (or our best guess as to what it might have been) to maybe sit somewhere unexpected.

But then surely we don't need a generally agreed and enforced dogma on this stuff anyway. Or do we??

Hi Everyone, hope I am still welcomed. I am a FOREIGNER. A foreigner to this WORLD! I am a guest, simply passing by. Look at my picture in large format, look into my eyes and you will come to see that I am truely a "foreigner". I have come to read thousands of books and perspectives on this subject of religion, wars and beliefs and have found an answer "for myself" on the subject, I`d like to share before I go back to where I come from.

I feel, the purpose behind all the different "religions" is the fact that there are so many consciousness levels in our species. The only problem I have with some of the things I had cross referenced is, that we tend to forget that the stories within the different religions were first past on for generations by means of word of mouth, then - noted on paper sometime down the road and following that it was "people" just like you and I, with different consciousness levels whom had the power to take out and add in, according to their interpretation of what they felt to be real. Thats when the "Religions" began taking its journey. Let me make an example:

There are people in this world whom can bend a metal spoon by means of mental capabilities, no tricks, no strings, no nothing; the metal bends, for someone whom doesnt know how to do this, it may seem like a "wonder", or maybe for the next person it will seem to be "evil", however for the people whom understand how this is possible, its "normal". So its all about consciousness levels. What I just wrote means theres 1 occurance with 3 oppinions, right? This information gets passed on according to the person whom writes it down for future generations. That generation believes whats "written" instead of listening to itself.

So when portraying this example onto all the different kinds of "religions" out there - I thought of exactly that. The person whom wrote or translated the information, what type of human could it have been, in what type of consciousness level.

When I put all the "confusing words" out of each religion aside, turn off my human ego and look at the solid information which is given I had come to find out that "all religions" have a section of truth within them. The reason why so many religions exist is because one person sees God as being manlike, and uses manlike "consciousness" while another sees God as being nature like, so inorder to promote their "point of view, their translation of what they feel is "right" the person creates a new religion and because we, the weeeee minded have EGO we fight to proove that the God of our Religion is the right God, and that of the others is the wrong God.

Which makes no sense what so ever, if you think about it consciously.Ergo: As in what real God would even remotely need such a simple minded creature like a tiny human to fight for God? How arrogant is it to even think that God needs any of us for such purpose. As if God were not powerful enough to wipe all of us clean within a splitt second. That can not be Gods plan for any soul.

God gave us humans "free will" and the tiny human uses this "free will" with Ego to fight, fuss, argue, hurt other human beings and animals  IN HIS NAME all over the world. 

Lets just use the simple minded human way of thinking for a moment: If you are a parent of children then you will most likely understand this. If you love your children, give them a playroom to play in, precious toys to play with, tell them be nice, love each other and get along, then you go sit down in a room behind a mirror to watch and experience their growth, how would you feel if your children started hurting & killing each other saying : "My mom or my dad told me to"... or would it hurt you as a parent to hear your children say: " mom said she loves Jack more than Jill and that you`re not worthy to be in the family because you look, act, are  different".

Thats whats written in most religious books, that its okay because God said to defend. It supposedly says theres one child loved more than the other: And I dont believe he EVER said anything like that, for our creator must be a very loving creator to allow us such "free will", it is up to us children in the playroom to reach out to the other child with a flower instead of a knife. Then we will have learned to please our creator. We as simple minded parents do not trust our own children to give them complete free will! So because of all the different translations and humans standing behind their ego when passing on the information it makes God look like a bad parent, which is not the case.   

Are we disappointing our parent?  We can always say I`m sorry, change our own way right this very moment and are still unconditionally loved.  Have we ever really thought about the word "unconditional"? LOVE EVERY HUMAN BEING ON THIS PLANET AND THE PLAYROOM PROVIDED and we will have understood Religion.

Love for all of you,
Nanner

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=10172&pst=790088&reply=1#804015